the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life
the bill also requires teh state to provide medical, dental and vision care for any child until 18
this is in response to south carolina trying to ban abortion after 6 weeks.
nows teh time for the pro life side to show they really are prop life.
they should all get behind this bill if they are really pro life…
Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.
There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?
I have a problem with the thread title, it should be “South Carolina bill demands the pro life forces put OUR money where their mouths are.”
But, since I also support single payer health care, the quibble is only with this thread title, not with the notion of our tax money going to provide medical care.
I’ve seen other threads about healtcare where folks say “Their smoking or being overweight are my business since it costs me money.” (or “the employers business, since they pay for health insurance”) This is just the extension of that to detectable birth defects.
That’s not what I said. I was speaking to the “unintended consequence” of the bill in the OP.
The bill in the OP states that if a woman, who wants an abortion because carrying a baby to term would result in harm to her or the baby - must be compensated by the state if she is forced to have the baby against her wishes and is harmed.
Do you agree that is what the bill in the OP boils down to?
The point I was attempting to make is, should a woman who has no intention of having an abortion, though she knows she may be harmed because of some problem already discovered with the fetus, or the fetus will be born with a birth defect etc - should that woman also get compensated by the state, even though she is having the baby by choice, and was not forced to do so.
My assumption is that the lawyers would say - if the state is going to compensate women who want an abortion for that reason but are refused it, then the state should also compensate women who don’t want an abortion for that reason.
So a heckuva lot of money is going to be paid out.
To address this particular point of yours…depending on your definition of perfect, I am leaning in that direction, yes.
There are genetic diseases or conditions where if man and women both carry the gene, the baby will have a birth defect or a chronic disease. Yet the parents go ahead and have the baby anyway knowing they are condemning their child to a life of misery. I think that’s pretty evil.
Many years ago, there was an article about a family that have 7 children - every single one with autism. (I"ve been looking and looking for that article on line and can’t find it, but I remember it clearly.)
Seven kids, all sitting in a corner hitting themselves in the head, growing up to be adults doing the same thing.
Continuing to have kids with that as their fate - is that a compassionate thing to do?
Let’s operate under the assumption that no one forced her to get pregnant. Mom and dad had all the tests and were pronounced “normal” and so their child should have been normal.
Yet tests reveal that something happened - maybe the woman was taking some pill that had unforseen side effects (like that pill years ago that ended up with babies being born without limbs - blanking on the name of it now).
And through no fault of the woman, carrying the baby to term will harm her and the baby.
What’s the percentage of women who have one-night stands, don’t use protection and the man is stupid and doesn’t use protection either. Should that guy have to pay child support for a kid he will never see and never wanted because he was too dumb to make sure the woman used protection?
I don’t think the state should have to pay. If the guy is dumb enough to have sex in this day and age without protection…should he be financially punished for his stupidity?
The way you phrase your response makes me think that it is you who have no compassion, much less an ability to have a straightforward discussion on a subject.
I would not force them to abort. But I would think they are pretty evil to bring such a child with no quality of life possible into the world.
I agree there. That’s the Catch-22. I don’t think states should pay welfare to women who have kids they can’t afford. (Bearing in mind that welfare is supposed to be a safety net, for people who have jobs but lose them, etc.) But if these women aren’t helped out financially, the kids lives would be even more miserable.
